Joined: 2003-02-13 04:21pmPosts: 12644Location: The third best place to live in the country.

Bakustra wrote:

So why is it that the US should have the right to cut off free trade and Iran should not, Justforfun?

Meanwhile, I see that Shep is still the quintessential imperialist: ignorant, contemptuous, enamored with violence, and delusional.

Are you fucking kidding me? "Ignorant"? Because of...what, exactly, in the context of the article he posted?

And by the way, the difference between the US cutting off free trade and Iran is that the US doesn't threaten to use indiscriminate military force to block off geographical locale that, at best, it only has 50% claim to.

Iran's parliament said Wednesday it was preparing a bill that would prohibit all foreign warships from entering the Persian Gulf unless they received permission from the Iranian navy.

The bill, disclosed by the the semiofficial Fars News Agency, surfaced a day after Iran’s armed forces commander warned a U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier not to return to the gulf, remarks that rattled commodities markets and helped drive up oil prices.

The proposed legislation suggested that at least some Iranian officials are serious about trying to stop the U.S. Navy from entering the oil-rich gulf waters. Iranian analysts said the bill probably would not have been introduced if it were not supported by higher authorities.

“If the military vessels and warships of any country want to pass via the Strait of Hormuz without coordination and permission of Iran’s navy forces, they should be stopped by the Iranian armed forces,” Fars quoted lawmaker Nader Qazipour as saying in explaining the bill. He noted that Iran regards the strait as part of its territorial waters and said the bill would be presented to parliamentary leaders next week.

Iranian Foreign Minister Ahmad Vahidi restated Iran's position that “transnational forces” have no place in the region. Vahidi also said Iran is willing to organize joint military drills with neighboring countries, Fars reported Wednesday.

The news agency, which has ties to Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, claimed that the carrier USS John C. Stennis, which steamed out of the Persian Gulf last week, had escaped while being “chased by Iranian warships.”

Awwwwwwww.......they're so cute like I said before, when they act like this!

Joined: 2005-05-18 10:23pmPosts: 5155Location: Feasting on those who fell in battle

Quote:

Iran's parliament said Wednesday it was preparing a bill that would prohibit all foreign warships from entering the Persian Gulf unless they received permission from the Iranian navy.

Way to go, Iran. Instead of you versus the United States, you've made it you versus the United States, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and Iraq- all of whom have navies, and all of whom now have a further reason to bomb you back to the Stone Age.

What does the average man on the street in Iran make of all of this grandstanding by their government?

There is an excellent chance his only information about it is from friends and family or state run TV. There is outside access in Iran but it's limited to the better offer so the "average" Iranian might not have idea it's even happening. But then so would the average American have any idea that shortly we might see the entire Iranian "navy" being sunk again.

As someone mentioned above..the stupidest thing you can do is provoke a confrontation involving something like oil that practically all countries value as liquid gold. Sure you can dick-wave about your own personal stores but you want to cry and stomp your feet when sanctions interfere with your business because you won't play fair with everyone? Tough. That's one of the very FEW methods we can use to actually enforce civility in the world.

Given that they are already in a position where they are being spied on constantly and they know it, their air space is being violated consistently and they know it, their scientists are either being assassinated or coincidentally exploding, and they know it, and their infrastructure is being sabotaged by exceedingly clever and effective electronic warfare, and they have finally worked that out, how do you expect them to act? I mean yeah, they are spending a lot of their time dick waving and foot stamping here, but it's not like the rest of the world is playing fair either. Short of military action, cutting off the oil they supply is about the only diplomatic action they can take because the rest of the world pretty much refuses to deal with them like a nation unless the entire government more or less stands down, so they are going to threaten to do it from time to time.

This is a fair point. The Iranians face the brute reality that few other countries take their sovereignty seriously; given that their government does not think it wise or proper to step down, what option do they have other than confrontation? What do they have to lose by rattling sabres?

They could abandon their nuclear program and as far as I know, we'd still reserve the right to stick our nose into their affairs- so what good would it do them, really?

As someone mentioned above..the stupidest thing you can do is provoke a confrontation involving something like oil that practically all countries value as liquid gold. Sure you can dick-wave about your own personal stores but you want to cry and stomp your feet when sanctions interfere with your business because you won't play fair with everyone? Tough. That's one of the very FEW methods we can use to actually enforce civility in the world.

Given that they are already in a position where they are being spied on constantly and they know it, their air space is being violated consistently and they know it, their scientists are either being assassinated or coincidentally exploding, and they know it, and their infrastructure is being sabotaged by exceedingly clever and effective electronic warfare, and they have finally worked that out, how do you expect them to act? I mean yeah, they are spending a lot of their time dick waving and foot stamping here, but it's not like the rest of the world is playing fair either. Short of military action, cutting off the oil they supply is about the only diplomatic action they can take because the rest of the world pretty much refuses to deal with them like a nation unless the entire government more or less stands down, so they are going to threaten to do it from time to time.

Lets be clear Iran's problem is that they are developing Atomic weapons. Once they have Nukes they will slip into the North Korea situation where they no longer need to fear direct US Invasion even if they have to start worrying about US support of internal dissidents.

*Edit to add something since DW postedIran is no more dangerous to the US today than it was thirty years ago. It's always been a nation unfriendly to the US that had access to strategic materials we want(Oil). Lots of those countries in the last thirty years have had force used against them in one form or another. Nukes however get the US or other nations to back off from direct invasions. It makes perfect sense from Iran's long term goals of becoming a regional player to acquire nuclear weapons as both a status and defense method. It just so happens that US policy is that Iran with nukes will instantly use them against us or Israel. I'd call that thinking based in racism but that's a separate topic entirely.

Yup, cos as soon as they stop trying to do that everyone will leave Iran alone and it will all be fine and dandy.

Quote:

Iran is no more dangerous to the US today than it was thirty years ago. It's always been a nation unfriendly to the US that had access to strategic materials we want(Oil). Lots of those countries in the last thirty years have had force used against them in one form or another. Nukes however get the US or other nations to back off from direct invasions. It makes perfect sense from Iran's long term goals of becoming a regional player to acquire nuclear weapons as both a status and defense method. It just so happens that US policy is that Iran with nukes will instantly use them against us or Israel. I'd call that thinking based in racism but that's a separate topic entirely.

Or their more short term goals of making sure no one is going to invade them.

In this case the short term and long term goals are in unison. Becoming the leader of the Middle East and staving off an international invasion can both be met by acquiring nukes and public demonstration of that fact.

How would that make them better off? Everyone already despises and embargoes their regime for political reasons; at least having a nuclear deterrent gives them a sharp enough sword to keep anyone from interfering too heavy-handedly in their interests and affairs.

Col. Crackpot wrote:

True. Though if the past 10 years have taught us anything, there is a not so fine line between recognizing those motives and justifying them.

I must be a slow pupil, Crackpot. Would you care to explain how the past ten years have taught us that? Who was handing out that lesson, and when?

Also, I have to ask you- how do you expect to offer any meaningful challenge to an opponent you refuse to understand? If you don't know why Iran wants a nuclear arsenal, or choose to invent reasons and assign them to the Iranians, you don't stand any chance of convincing them to stop trying. Not short of a massive war- a war you'd be fighting pretty much blind, as far as grand strategy is concerned, because you don't know your enemy.

Also, I have to ask you- how do you expect to offer any meaningful challenge to an opponent you refuse to understand? If you don't know why Iran wants a nuclear arsenal, or choose to invent reasons and assign them to the Iranians, you don't stand any chance of convincing them to stop trying. Not short of a massive war- a war you'd be fighting pretty much blind, as far as grand strategy is concerned, because you don't know your enemy.

To be fair, it's not just him. Since about the end of the cold war as far as I can tell, actual diplomacy has been abandoned in favour of sanctions and embargoes, which we now call diplomacy.

Well, that sort of thing has always been common when strong states deal with weak ones- but if we're going to be intelligent about using sanctions and ultimatums, we need to be able to understand how other countries will react to them. You can't expect a stubborn, determined government to wither away and die just because they don't have your permission to rule.

Yeah, I get that, it's just depressing. I think it may actually be a result of the whole 'we don't negotiate with terrorists' idea, which is sensible enough for an individual terrorist act, like hostage taking or a bomb threat, but falls apart when you label a group of people running a country terrorists or something similar and then flat out refuse to negotiate with them, which seems to be that standard response to the middle east at the moment. It's like a checklist.

1. Muslim? Yes2. Organised group of some description? Yes.Terrorists! No negotiating! Use force! What? Not a whole army! Sanctions! Yes, Sanctions!

Yes, because the only options they have are now to either bow to the demands of foreign powers and stop developing weapons and stand down the fucking government, or start retaliating by cutting of vital exports to the rest of the world if not actually starting a shooting war. Given that no government in the world would stand down just because someone told them to, and anyone with half a brain would realise this, I don't see how engineering a situation that will inevitably lead to conflict helps anyone, least of all the citizens of the country most likely to be bombed back to the stone age.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that anybody really wants an avowed theocracy around, and furthermore that its any good for the people it rules over. So yes, I do expect them to stand down, and anything less is a moral failing on their part.

I don't think they should do just anything the Americans say, of course. They're just a convenient motivator in this case.

So, you expect a theocracy that you find to be unpleasant and presumably immoral (I mean, I sure do, what with the stonings and the acid burnings and the general terribleness) to stand down because not doing so would be immoral. The strategy you are espousing in an attempt to prevent bloodshed is barely any different than a parent saying to a child 'stop what you're doing or you don't get X' and it barely works on children, so I don't see why you expect armed insane fanatics to react reasonably to it. Yes, Iran needs to be fixed, but brinkmanship and threats are not going to solve the problem, they are far more likely to lead violence than prevent it.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum